Soren wrote on Nov 13^th, 2012 at 10:41pm:


The evolution of altruism is associated with human beings, although there is evidence of altruism in other species.  I don't know where you're getting the animals bit from.  Secondly, it's only the aspect of altruism that impacts fitness to survive that has any relevance in the case in question.

muso wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 5:15am:



Dictionary;
altruism = = selfless concern for the well-being of others.

Indeed pure altruism, does seem to be evident in creatures other than man.

e.g.
Google;
hippo resuscitates impala

Soren wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 9:01am:


You see, that's a significant difference. I don't regard it as reductionism. It doesn't take anything away from the beauty of life and the universe. It adds an extra dimension of understanding.

Understanding the harmony of the spheres, the musica universalis opens up a whole new appreciation of nature.

The mathematics that underlie the physical world (and not just living things) tends to reinforce its elegance. It adds to the beauty by enhancing our understanding of the intricacies of nature.

Without such an understanding, you live in a perpetual philosophical fog.  Life is not meant to be foggy. It's safe to come on out and enjoy the sunshine.  The 19th Century is over now. Kant and Hegel are dead philosophers. Deal with it.

Quote:

True. Not much has. I'd be the first to agree.

I never said for one minute that you could explain the whole of Human Experience using mathematics. You're using a strawman.  I thought I had explained that it was only one tiny aspect of altruistic behaviour that could be thus described in a very empirical fashion.

I've never heard of any scientist who expected that you could explain any natural phenomenon using mathematics and "without residue". That is again a strawman.   We come extremely  close to it when it comes to basic calculations such as the  orbit of satellites, but the mathematics is never perfect, especially when you downscale to atomic and subatomic scales.

The ironic thing is that what you describe as the "residue" is probably of most interest.

muso wrote on Nov 14^th, 2012 at 8:46pm:


This is quite a climb down from you. You started out making much larger claims for mathematics and altrusim.

muso wrote on Nov 15^th, 2012 at 5:46pm:



I don't regard mathematics as a black art, quite the opposite. It is far too confidently bandied about. 'The science says so' is used sometimes as if science has has all that can be said or is worth saying about something.

In this discussion, for example, I am kicking against this sort of baseless overstatement:

muso wrote on Nov 7^th, 2012 at 5:15pm:



This kind of statement is either very 'artful dodger' or very silly and narrow. I do not think that initially you tried to be cunning and tricky, so to me it shows a mindset that is making far too large claims for science, and even mathematics, because it is just blind to what doesn't fit into the mathematically-expressed; or is dismissive about it as being of second or third-order importance.

To me, however, the 'residue', the stuff that is left over after all that science can say has been said, is the important stuff because that is the personal, interpersonal, lived experience of actual human being. What matter in life is not scientific. This attitude is not anti-science in any way. It just orders things as people over millennia have lived and will live their lives.
Altruism is such a personal, interpersonal, lived experience that is out of reach for mathematically expressed science. (not beyond the reach of knowledge of other kinds, though.) It can be dealt  with mathematically only if its reality - true selflessness - is discounted or dismissed.

It can be fully grasped and understood  only in the particular experience, like all the other 'residual' stuff of human life.

It's not because 'they're human'.

It is not even that these human experiences - altrusims, cowardice, bravery, sympathy, etc - are not quantifiable and therefore expressible mathematically.

It is because they are not experienced quantitatively, mathematically but qualitatively, if you like. They are uncountable qualities and experiences.


Specifically, altrusims is misunderstood if treated as strategy for selecting for fitness because a strategy implies, by definition, a positive interest while altrusim, by definition, implies acting without such a positive interest.